Gun Debate

#2
#2
Regardless of carry/ownership laws, the late incident at VT could not have been avoided. Though, through open carry laws and the allowance of citizens to bear arms regardless of permits or location, been stymied by a person carrying a weapon legally for their own self-defense. Unfortunately, in this incidence, a few people would have lost their lives, as heartless as that sounds, but it would not have been nearly the overall total.
 
#3
#3
I do not think you can compare the gang member to the average criminal. Those engaged in "warfare" are not deterred because of the perceived honor of the cause for which they have risked their lives. Those in a gang unfortunately view death as a result of a shootout with opposing gang members as "honorable." They are fighting for a cause, for their livelihood, manhood, and turf. The average criminal is quite different. Take for example a burglar. The armed burglar is seeking to make a quick profit by stealing objects belonging to another person. A burglar is not willing to risk being "shot" as this removes any possibility for them to enjoy their spoils. Furthermore, if the spoils are "few," then the burlgar has risked more than he can potentially gain. Consequently, the burglar is not likely to pick a victim armed to the teeth.

However, the issue is whether or not the perpetrator, intent on killing people, like Cho, can be deterred by individuals carrying guns? Maybe not but this is not the real question in my opinion. The real question is, what is the likelihood the magnitude of the tragedy is abated if he encountered victims carrying guns? Certainly the likelihood of perpetuating this degree of tragedy is less likely if your victims have guns and are firing back.

Which is the point, after all! The students and professors on the campus adhering to the university prohibition against possessing/carrying firearms are sitting ducks to the lone violator. If you have 35,999 people abiding by the prohibition and 1 individual violating it, this necessarily equates into one individual disproportionaly armed and the other 35,999 defenseless against him because they do not have the means to stop him or defend themselves. The result, the type of massacre which transpired on VT's campus.

When it comes to a gun fight, the individual showing up with a gun and the individual appearing unarmed is at a huge disadvantage.
 
#4
#4
How many disputes between civilians, like road rage incidents or fights at bars for example, would end in a fatality if both participants had guns? How many would end in a fatality if they were unarmed?
Click to expand...

Well, I do not the OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners in America either, A. Never fire their weapon or B. If they do fire it, they never shoot or kill another human being.


If more law abiding citizens armed themselves, I tend to think we'd have more gun violence rather then less, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure. As I said before, the OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners in America either, A. Never fire their weapon or B. If they do fire it, they never shoot or kill another human being.

First of all, I've heard that a good number of gun deaths are people dying by their own gun. Having it used against them by an assailant who's discovered that they don't have the nerve or the ability to actually use the weapon. Persons untrained with guns can be as much a hazard to themselves and the people they're trying to protect then anyone.
Click to expand...

While these are unfortunate consequences of gun ownership, I do not think they are compelling enough reasons to infringe upon the liberty to own a gun. Accidents are inevitable in regards to a host of products. There were 42,636 automobile fatalities in 2004. Every automobile accident is avoidable because they are all the result of human error, recklessness, negligence, inattentiveness, etcetera. However, the freedom to produce automobiles and own one is paramount and outweighs the costs, unless someone proposes we go back to horse and buggy.

The point is, just because there are some undesirable consequences attached to freedom, freedom to own a gun, drive a car, consume unhealthy foods, I do not think is a compelling enough reason to circumscribe the freedom. If this is to be the standard, then there will be very little freedom left.
 
#5
#5
I have never known any gun to goto trial and be convicted of murder. With that said, gun control isn't the answer, people control is. It is a right granted to us by the founding fathers that we have the right to bear arms and this government can't change the Constitution so the liberals can have their way. If they think that gun control is the answer, I challenge them to put a sign on their house saying, "This house is a Gun-Free Zone."
 
#6
#6
I heard Rosie was going nuts over gun control. She runs her big mouth on every topic. If she knows so much and can do so much then why doesn't she run for office?
 
#7
#7
I'm going to buy a Beretta U22 Neos next week (my first gun purchase) so that is my answer to the question.

I wish I knew how to upload pictures but if you have seen Happy Gilmore you will know what I'm talking about. The guys t-shirt said "Guns don't kill people, I kill people."
 
#9
#9
Really though anyone who listens to a word she says needs to have their head examined.
 
#11
#11
JZVOL said:
I wish I knew how to upload pictures but if you have seen Happy Gilmore you will know what I'm talking about. The guys t-shirt said "Guns don't kill people, I kill people."
Click to expand...

This pic?
 

Attachments

  • guns-cap1.jpg
    guns-cap1.jpg
    20.8 KB · Views: 42
#15
#15
There should be more strenuous(sp?) measures in place for people to purchase guns. I am not against people having them - just not the nut jobs of the world.
 
#17
#17
VOLracerx said:
There should be more strenuous(sp?) measures in place for people to purchase guns. I am not against people having them - just not the nut jobs of the world.
Click to expand...

Wrong. What would further measures actually prevent? It would still only check those who choose to go thru the correct channels. Add'l gov't checks will never prevent people from getting their hands on guns.

Proper training for those who purchase guns would be a better effort.
 
#18
#18
And proper training would have stopped the VT killings? There is no end-all for this problem.
 
#19
#19
CSpindizzy said:
And proper training would have stopped the VT killings? There is no end-all for this problem.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that will stop someone intent on killing others. A gun can be obtained in many ways and very few criminals would even attempt to do it legally. Would the killer have walked into those classrooms if he thought they were all armed?
 
#20
#20
utvolpj said:
There is nothing that will stop someone intent on killing others. A gun can be obtained in many ways and very few criminals would even attempt to do it legally. Would the killer have walked into those classrooms if he thought they were all armed?
Click to expand...

Highly doubtful
 
#21
#21
utvolpj said:
There is nothing that will stop someone intent on killing others. A gun can be obtained in many ways and very few criminals would even attempt to do it legally. Would the killer have walked into those classrooms if he thought they were all armed?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that he had no problem with dying.
 
#22
#22
I agree. I doubt that having an armed citizenry would have prevented Cho from attempting the stunt. However, it would have definitely changed the results.
 
#23
#23
Yup. Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people. Yet they want more gun control. Like I said before, I challenge all the politicians that want MORE gon control to take them away from their armed guards and put a sign in their from yard that says, "This is a gun-FREE zone".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top